Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreA contractor submitted two tenders to NTPC for construction work, each accompanied by an earnest money deposit, but withdrew its bids before the financial bids were opened and asked for the earnest money back. NTPC refused, citing a contract condition that earnest money would be forfeited on "revocation of the tender." The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) ruled in the contractor's favour, holding that withdrawal before the bid was opened did not amount to "revocation" under that clause, and ordered NTPC to refund the money.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had confused "revocation of the tender" (withdrawal by the bidder) with "revocation of the tender notice" (cancellation by the corporation): the clause plainly covered withdrawal by the bidder. Relying on its own earlier rulings in National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises and other precedents, the Court held that a bidder's general right under Section 5 of the Contract Act, 1872 to withdraw an offer before it is accepted does not override a specific contractual term providing that earnest money will be forfeited on withdrawal: the two rights operate independently, and forfeiture clauses exist precisely to discourage non-genuine bids. Since the contractor had agreed to this condition when submitting its bid, it had no right to demand a refund upon withdrawing. The Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the contractor's writ petition, allowing NTPC's appeal.
Withdrawing a bid or tender before it is even opened does not automatically entitle a bidder to get their earnest money back if the tender conditions clearly say the money will be forfeited on withdrawal: a specific forfeiture clause in a contract can validly override the general right to withdraw an offer before acceptance.
